KryptosChain Media (The Next Level!) - 6 Months of funding

Medium Spender
1yr ago
78 Comments
Rejected
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up 2
Share
Request
22,687DOT
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation1d
Attempts
0
Tally
35.4%Aye
50.0%Threshold
64.6%Nay
Aye
32.01MDOT
Nay
58.29MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

Threshold

Support(0.88%)
11.41MDOT
Issuance
1.3BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Calls
Call
Metadata
Timeline4
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

So clearly this is a NAY from me and should be from most people do to the absurd nature of the ask

Setting aside the facts

  • That you want 500 USD a video. ~89K USD for 6 months work. i.e. You would be in the top 1% of earners globally for just making in my opinion terrible youtube videos.
  • This person has previously Doxxed other community members.
  • This person has made no effort to make their business sustainable long term. Meaning he expects us to fund him forever for content that is non-education, not evergreen and quite frankly low quality.

My Main point of issue with this.

Saying you get "5% for the slippage fees" is just factually incorrect.

You can sell 115K USD in DOT on binance right now for less than 1% slippage. I'm looking at the market right now.

I'm getting so sick of people in this industry pissing on my leg and then telling me it's raining. This is just another classic example of KryptosChain thinking everyone else in the ecosystem is stupid and he can pull the wool over our eyes.

Clearly a NAY from anyone who cares about Facts, the truth or the general health of the polkadot influencer ecosystem.

image.png

Reply
Up

Over the past months, the Polkadot ecosystem has generously extended financial support to numerous content creators, with the aspiration of nurturing an informed and engaged community. Notable among the beneficiaries has been KryptosChain, whose initial proposals received support, mine included. The underlying assumption, at least my own, was that a reasonable one-time financial gesture would catalyze a ripple of educative and engaging content, enriching the Polkadot community.

However, it appears that what was envisioned as a goodwill gesture has morphed into an expectation of a regular salary from the treasury by some content creators. This shift warrants a thorough re-evaluation of our funding strategy toward content creation.

The fundamental question we need to grapple with is the return on investment that these funded endeavors are delivering to the Polkadot community. The funding asks are substantial, often exceeding $100,000 annually, yet the metrics demonstrating the commensurate value addition to the ecosystem remain elusive. It's not unreasonable to expect content creators to provide objective, verifiable Key Performance Indicators that demonstrate how their efforts are attracting new users and how the funding received aligns with the influence they exert within and beyond the Polkadot ecosystem.

Taking a step further, the sustainability and self-sufficiency of these content channels should be a critical factor in our evaluation. A content creator's ability to secure advertising or subscriptions is a tangible indicator of the value they provide and the interest they garner. If a channel struggles to achieve self-sustenance, it's worth questioning the rationale behind allocating, or continuing to allocate, community resources to support it.

Now, delving a tad deeper into the ethos of our ecosystem. Polkadot has been conceived, built, and is continually enhanced by brilliant developers. It's a platform that, by its very nature, offers a wealth of content for discussion, analysis, and dissemination. Content creators who successfully build self-sustaining channels around Polkadot arguably owe a debt of gratitude to the ecosystem that provides them with engaging material, and potentially, a livelihood. The notion that the Polkadot treasury owes a recurrent financial obligation to content creators is a premise that needs revisiting.

It's imperative that we create and foster a culture of self-sustainability, accountability, and demonstrable impact among content creators. The Polkadot treasury should not be perceived as a regular revenue stream, but rather, as a springboard for creators to build self-sustaining, impactful channels that contribute tangibly to Polkadot. The metrics for evaluating proposals need to be stringent, transparent, and tied to clear indicators of community engagement and ecosystem growth. This approach will ensure that our resources are allocated judiciously, upholding the core values and long-term vision of the Polkadot ecosystem.

Reply
Up

https://twitter.com/kryptoschain/status/1721228313824211348?s=46&t=S0Dj-4OJGn8sbTwfmBl4wA
I cant support this kind of statements , so I changed AYE to NAY

Reply
Up 1

It does not matter what is your opinion about this porposal... there is selected group of people who feal entitled to decide about this.... Giotto made group on telegram but unfortuneatly he gave admin to the people feling entitled to own tihs whole ECO.... Democracy in this time and age of OpenGov is non existing.... You need to agree with them or move out from this eco... simple as that

Edited

Reply
Up

A lot of appreciated community members are complaining about this proposer's content quality, and it's quit

Edited

Reply
Up

CLAUDIO SHOULD RE NAME HIS SHITTY CHANNEL TO CRYPTOGOOFY ASS SHIT. I can belive how no one faced you in Decoded. Are you still paying your swiss tour bills with this money?

Reply
Up

PLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOVPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIOPLEASE LEAVE THIS ecosystem CLAUDIO

Reply
Up